nature - feminine or neuter ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
Is "nature" feminine or neuter?
I have been hearing people say "nature herself" instead of "nature itself".
Is it admissible or correct to say "nature herself"?
(What about "nature himself", no room at all?)
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Is "nature" feminine or neuter?
I have been hearing people say "nature herself" instead of "nature itself".
Is it admissible or correct to say "nature herself"?
(What about "nature himself", no room at all?)

Historically (for reasons I can't tell you), it's been Mother Nature so I guess by default, if anything, it's feminine.

Mother Nature
Old Father Time

Cars and boats are commonly referred to as "she" too.
 

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
Historically (for reasons I can't tell you), it's been Mother Nature so I guess by default, if anything, it's feminine.

Mother Nature
Old Father Time

Cars and boats are commonly referred to as "she" too.

Thanks emsr2d2! Thank you not just for the direct answer but also for the important comments regarding "Father Time" and the common feminine usage of "cars" and "boats".

Remarkably enough "nature itself" has produced more hits than "nature herself" in the google search engine here.
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Thanks emsr2d2! Thank you not just for the direct answer but also for the important comments regarding "Father Time" and the common feminine usage of "cars" and "boats".

Remarkably enough "nature itself" has produced more hits than "nature herself" in the google search engine here.

I'm not surprised that "nature itself" crops up more often as I'm sure that in all "serious" writing, no gender would be given. When I said "if anything, it's feminine" I meant "it's certainly not masculine"! However, neutral is bound to win out in any language which doesn't give a gender to nouns.

I would expect anyone who is going to use it, to probably say "Mother Nature herself" or at least "Nature herself", with a capital "N" as if it were a proper noun.
 

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
I'm not surprised that "nature itself" crops up more often as I'm sure that in all "serious" writing, no gender would be given. When I said "if anything, it's feminine" I meant "it's certainly not masculine"! However, neutral is bound to win out in any language which doesn't give a gender to nouns.

I would expect anyone who is going to use it, to probably say "Mother Nature herself" or at least "Nature herself", with a capital "N" as if it were a proper noun.

Oh, I think I've read you previously too quickly. Sorry about that. It's OK now.

Do you affirm that in English there are only two "genders", that is, feminine and masculine - so that "neuter" is not a "gender" at all? I mean, in some languages, German for instance, there are clearly three distinct "genders". By the way, am I using the word "gender" correctly or is there another better one here?
 

Tullia

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I'm not surprised that "nature itself" crops up more often as I'm sure that in all "serious" writing, no gender would be given. When I said "if anything, it's feminine" I meant "it's certainly not masculine"! However, neutral is bound to win out in any language which doesn't give a gender to nouns.

I would expect anyone who is going to use it, to probably say "Mother Nature herself" or at least "Nature herself", with a capital "N" as if it were a proper noun.


I agree. "Nature herself" is more associated with poetic or creative writing, or evocative descriptions. It should not be used in scientific text!



It was a beautiful day. Nature herself had smiled on the earth: everything seemed green and gold.

While it is possible to cross-pollinate these two varieties of cacti, this does not happen in nature itself as their natural habitats are too far apart. It has only been done in lab conditions.



Do you affirm that in English there are only two "genders", that is, feminine and masculine - so that "neuter" is not a "gender" at all? I mean, in some languages, German for instance, there are clearly three distinct "genders". By the way, am I using the word "gender" correctly or is there another better one here?

Well, in English nouns don't officially have a gender at all. Gender based pronouns etc are based on the real-life gender of the person/animal. Inanimate objects are therefore all "it".

There are a couple of rare exceptions where inanimate items may take a feminine or masculine pronoun but in such cases it is purely because they are being personified, and treated as animate, not because of a grammatical reason. As said above, ships and cars are often regarded as having a peculiarly feminine personality, and may in expressive writing be referred to as "she". I've also heard it with some cities, as well. "She's a cruel town, New York. She'll eat you up and spit you out as quick as look at you." Again, it's personification of New York as a human, and thus having a real gender - and in this case a feminine one.
 
Last edited:

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
"Nature herself" is more associated with poetic or creative writing, or evocative descriptions. It should not be used in scientific text!

Now I think I can use the expression "remarkably enough", here we go:

Remarkably enough, I have just heard the expression "Nature herself" in a scientific lecture. Physicists do like to use it.

But I reckon they use it in situations of stressing and admiring "Nature wonders and mysteries". After all "Nature" is not something that easy to understand.
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Oh, I think I've read you previously too quickly. Sorry about that. It's OK now.

Do you affirm that in English there are only two "genders", that is, feminine and masculine - so that "neuter" is not a "gender" at all? I mean, in some languages, German for instance, there are clearly three distinct "genders". By the way, am I using the word "gender" correctly or is there another better one here?

If you're talking about the same sort of "gender" as exists in German (das, der, die etc) then English has no gender use at all. Obviously, people and animals are either male or female but that's solely based on anatomical qualities!

We have one definite article (the), two indefinite articles (a/an), and our adjectives don't change based on the noun that they're describing.

You're using the word "gender" correctly as far as language is concerned, but in BrE it is simply another word for "sex" (the noun, not the verb). It's not used when talking about language unless we're talking about a foreign language!

What sex was your baby?
What gender is the child?
 

sarat_106

Key Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Oriya
Home Country
India
Current Location
India
But I reckon they use it in situations of stressing and admiring "Nature wonders and mysteries". After all "Nature" is not something that easy to understand.

I do agree, whether we call it God's Nature or human nature both are mysterious and full of wonders.
It is said that the Almighty God and the total material substance called Nature, are One and the same. God is observer and inactive where as Nature is energetic, changeable and active. As a matter of fact, they are the two sides of the same coin. The Nature is the mother and the Almighty God is the seed-giving father, as result of which creation of all species of life is made possible. As God controls the Universe by His nature so also every created living being is controlled by his/her/its nature. But the difference is that while God is not controlled by His nature, the embodied soul of a living being is under the control of his nature which has three qualities, of material nature: goodness, passion and ignorance. Therefore it is difficult to understand a persons nature.
 

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
I do agree, whether we call it God's Nature or human nature both are mysterious and full of wonders.
It is said that the Almighty God and the total material substance called Nature, are One and the same. God is observer and inactive where as Nature is energetic, changeable and active. As a matter of fact, they are the two sides of the same coin. The Nature is the mother and the Almighty God is the seed-giving father, as result of which creation of all species of life is made possible. As God controls the Universe by His nature so also every created living being is controlled by his/her/its nature. But the difference is that while God is not controlled by His nature, the embodied soul of a living being is under the control of his nature which has three qualities, of material nature: goodness, passion and ignorance. Therefore it is difficult to understand a persons nature.

Wise words, to read and reread. Thanks sarat_106!
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
I do agree, whether we call it God's Nature or human nature both are mysterious and full of wonders.
It is said that the Almighty God and the total material substance called Nature, are One and the same. God is observer and inactive where as Nature is energetic, changeable and active. As a matter of fact, they are the two sides of the same coin. The Nature is the mother and the Almighty God is the seed-giving father, as result of which creation of all species of life is made possible. As God controls the Universe by His nature so also every created living being is controlled by his/her/its nature. But the difference is that while God is not controlled by His nature, the embodied soul of a living being is under the control of his nature which has three qualities, of material nature: goodness, passion and ignorance. Therefore it is difficult to understand a persons nature.

That's a nice post, but for those of us who don't believe in any god, nature still exists!
 

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States
That's a nice post, but for those of us who don't believe in any god, nature still exists!

1) If I understood well, sarat_106 didn't say neither that nature nor Nature does not exist.
2) Existence is also a complicated matter. It is not clear to me that one's belief in any god may cause nature to exist or not.
3) Definitions of words like "exist" or "believe" are not that simple. Currently I don't have satisfactory personal definitions for them. If you ask someone "Do you believe in God/Nature?" you run the risk of the person to stop and puzzle herself more about the very meaning of the verb "believe" than by the whole question itself.

I still think that sarat_106's previous post is much more than mere a "nice post."
 

Ouisch

Key Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I found this information in mental floss magazine, and I have a feeling that since the land and Earth are referred to in feminine terms, it only makes sense that the controller of the climate and species on said land should also be feminine, i.e. Mother Nature:

Why are countries feminine?


“Stand beside her, and guide her,” we sing in “God Bless America.” Come to think of it, most nations of the world are referred to in the female gender. However, it’s not because of some last-minute token political correctness.

English is one of the few languages that does not distinguish between masculine and feminine nouns. For example, in English, a cat is a cat, and a dog is a dog. But in French (for example), a cat is la chat, making it a feminine noun, while a dog is le chien, which makes it masculine (whether or not it’s actually a bitch). (And we mean “bitch” strictly in the canine sense.) Latin, the root of the English language, also has feminine and masculine words, and terra firma is one of them. Terra firma means earth, or solid ground, and it is feminine. So, partly because of its Latin origin, and partly because the rich earth beneath our feet was the original source of food (and nurturing) for our ancestors, our humble planet became known as Mother Earth.

Keeping with that train of thought, all land in general was eventually referred to in the feminine sense. We speak of “her shores” and “the Motherland.” The sole exception is Germany, which, during World War II, was known as "Vaterland.” Technically, vaterland is gender-neutral, but it was translated into English as “Fatherland.” The terms is not used much today, due to its negative connotations.
 

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
English is one of the few languages that does not distinguish between masculine and feminine nouns. For example, in English, a cat is a cat, and a dog is a dog. But in French (for example), a cat is la chat, making it a feminine noun, while a dog is le chien, which makes it masculine (whether or not it’s actually a bitch). (And we mean “bitch” strictly in the canine sense.)
I"m sorry, Ouisch, but you are wrong about French, "la chatte" is for a female cat, "le chat" is for a male cat, and "la chienne" is for a female dog and "le chien" is for a male dog.
 

Abstract Idea

Key Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Portuguese
Home Country
Brazil
Current Location
United States

I"m sorry, Ouisch, but you are wrong about French, "la chatte" is for a female cat, "le chat" is for a male cat, and "la chienne" is for a female dog and "le chien" is for a male dog.

If I understand well, it is not Ouisch who is "wrong", but the mentioned article, a piece of which can also be found in this old interesting related thread:
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/78202-gender-country-she-france-but-she-usa.html

Anyway thanks for the important remark bhaisahab!
 

philadelphia

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
French
Home Country
France
Current Location
France
*Not a teacher

I would say the use of the genders in English mainly derives from latin. That being said, this could also come from the tendency to make the things be funnier, more human and/or more beautiful. We French do use the genders such as the Earth = la Terre (feminine); a country = un pays (masculine); a car = une voiture (feminine); a bus = un bus (masculine); a dog = un chien (masculine) or une chienne (feminine); and it would go on.
 

sarat_106

Key Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Oriya
Home Country
India
Current Location
India
1) If I understood well, sarat_106 didn't say neither that nature nor Nature does not exist.
2) Existence is also a complicated matter. It is not clear to me that one's belief in any god may cause nature to exist or not.
3) Definitions of words like "exist" or "believe" are not that simple. Currently I don't have satisfactory personal definitions for them. If you ask someone "Do you believe in God/Nature?" you run the risk of the person to stop and puzzle herself more about the very meaning of the verb "believe" than by the whole question itself.

I still think that sarat_106's previous post is much more than mere a "nice post."

Thank you very much for your kind complements. You are perfectly correct in saying that 'existence', 'faith' or 'believe' are not simple things because they are related to one's nature which is complex.

When it is explained that God and His nature are one and the same, there can be no denying the fact that as long as God exists His nature also exists. Of course, faith in God or believing the existence of God is a different matter. I have faith in God, so I believe that He exists within me as well as all living beings and also the Universe created by His Nature. So for me to believe God means to love all living beings as well as His creation called Universal nature. It naturally follows that all living beings (believer or non-believer) have their individual nature different from each other. As a matter of fact, a living being is characterized by the type of nature he/she/it possesses, which varies according to the extent of three qualities ( goodness, passion and ignorance) present in the nature. If the quality of goodness is predominant in one’s nature, he/she is undoubtedly a good person.
 
Last edited:

bhaisahab

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Ireland
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top